New York – With conservative lawmakers across the United States trying to outlaw sharia, or Islamic religious law, Jewish organizations are concerned that halachah could be next.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
If the state legislative initiatives targeting sharia are successful, they would gut a central tenet of American Jewish religious communal life: The ability under U.S. law to resolve differences according to halachah, or Jewish religious law.
“The laws are not identical, but as a general rule they could be interpreted broadly to prevent two Jewish litigants from going to a beit din,” a Jewish religious court, said Abba Cohen, the Washington director of Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox umbrella group. “That would be a terrible infringement on our religious freedom.”
A number of recent beit din arbitrations that were taken by litigants to civil courts — on whether a batch of etrogim met kosher standards; on whether a teacher at a yeshiva was rightfully dismissed; and on the ownership of Torah scrolls — would have no standing under the proposed laws.
All those idiots like Limbaugh and Beck who rant about Shariah law and seek to forbid the U.S. courts from recognizing any role for muslim observance are ignorant of the fact that yidden routinely defer to beis dins for most litigation and the civil courts allow it. Shariah law and halacha should have the SAME standing in the U.S. If the parties to a dispute voluntarily want to submit to the jurisdiction of a religious court, they should have the right to do so. At the same time, the U.S. criminal courts will always have jurisdiction whether the parties agree or not.
What is everyone getting so worked up about? According to Sharia law, it is permissable for men to engage in honor killings, if they think that their daughters are “becoming too westernized”. This idiotic defense by an Iraqi in Arizona, was thrown out by the local criminal court. He had savagely run over and killed his daughter, because she was dating. He was sentenced to 34 years. In my opinion, he should have been sentenced to life, without parole! There is no comparison between Sharia law (which emanates from the stone age), and Halacha. Therefore, let us stop going to the defense of Muslim law!
I have been saying this all along. A blow against one religion is a blow against all religions. And history has not been kind to ours.
If proper church-state relations are to be maintained, prudence dictates that municipal law (as used in a jurisprudential sense) should give no recognition whatsover to halakha, sharia or any religion-based system, nor should it allow these systems in any way to be subsumed or incorporated by reference or agreement into domestic law. Any other course transforms the state into religious judge and enforcer.
Perhaps it is possible for halakhic or shariac litigants to conclude their religious proceedings and mask the religious origins in the final agreement/order issued by the arbitrator. But so long as that act is subject to judicial review, and it is impossible to see how it would not be, the state is put in the position of using, reviewing or approving, at some level, the religion-peculiar content by which the agreement/order was arrived at by the supposedly incognito sectarians.
I will be honest I didn’t read the whole article but the basic point is the vast majority of these conservative legislators are pro Jewish and are only against Sharia because they fear with good reason the Islamic takeover of the USA
There are laws, and there are laws. Some should be permitted to be incorporated, just like the U.S. has always permitted, for example, contracts to specify the law of England, for example, if the parties wish, for interpretation, or even litigation. However, perhaps most of criminal law should not be incorporated.
If Jewish law were interpreted literally to enforce “eye for eye” as stated in the written Torah, that would not be permitted to be incorporated. Not all that hard to figure out which are ok and which are not. Just requires a little effort.
This would certainly not affect going to a beis din, because that’s treated like arbitration–you’re expressly not using the court system.
I guess it might affect the other things mentioned in the full article, like contracts with overseas coporations that involved sharia law as the law of the land in other countries, or divorce issues.
Don’t worry, the Satmar brothers are still litigating in secular courts.
All jokes aside, the issue with sharia law is its subversiveness to local, state or federal law. Halacha is used for the most part as arbitration…like judge judy. Jewish politicians should not be on the forefront of defending sharia law seeking muslims, because their intentions are subversive and undermine the democratic principles of the USA
I don’t think there is such a problem with halacha conflicting with dina d’malchuscha, except of course allowing men to have more than one wife at a time.
To Esther: I don’t agree with the pompous remarks of “PMO in FL” (#11), or #15 (Anonymous). Both are birds of a feather, as both of their postings are completely arrogant, illogical, abrasive, and condescending. Unfortunately, some people on this board get a lot of pleasure by attempting to humiliate and degrade other commentators on this discussion board. If one cannot say anything good about others, they should keep their reprehensible remarks to themselves!
The state should never intefere with religious matter. The Halachah is followed by those who want to follow it, and those who don’t want to consult a Rabbi has the right not to. So the State has nothing to do in that matter. The same with the Sharia law: those Muslmi who want it, let’s give them the right to follow it, but those who don’t want, leave them alone. The State has no saying on matter like belief and religion.